Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 22, 2024, 12:11 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You still don't understand. Adler only teaches how to think about God, the personage. Not His actions.

dhw: Then stop pretending that your theories (inefficient design) and contradictory suggestions (might want to be worshipped but has no self-interest) are supported by Adler, let alone all theologians.

DAVID: The self-less theory comes from many theologians.

I don’t care how many. Why don’t you respond to the arguments? Every theologian who conducts services in a church, synagogue or mosque presumably believes that their God wants to be worshipped. This contradicts the theory that their God has no self-interest. Yes or no? (NB I have no objection at all to the worship theory. Perfectly understandable. I only object to the total illogicality of the argument that a God who wants to be worshipped has no self-interest.)

DAVID: I am logically following instructions of which you are ignorant.
And:
DAVID: I have been given strict attributes, contrary to your approach above, without any guidelines.

dhw: What instructions, strict attributes and guidelinss have ordered you to blatantly contradict yourself, as above? Please answer.

DAVID: My so-called contradictions are caused by your full misunderstanding of how to
think about God. God creates without considering Himself in any way.

What strict instructions/attributes/guidelines force you to theorize that your God might want us to worship him, but can’t want us to worship him because he is selfless?

Evolution and Raup

DAVID: Do you believe evolution is a simple way to create? NOT your sentiment years ago.

dhw: More dodging. This time a totally pointless question. I accept that all species, including humans, evolved. I do not accept that your all-powerful God would have messily and inefficiently specially designed and culled 99.9 out of 10 species that had nothing to do with the only species he actually wanted to design. What has simplicity got to do with anything?

DAVID: Full dodge! I remember your statement that evolution was an inefficient way to create.

I have never ever made any such statement. On the contrary, I have offered you three explanations of evolution’s history that do not require YOUR ridiculing of your God as being an inefficient designer: experimentation in order to find the best way of implementing his wishes, experimentation in order to make new discoveries, and a free-for-all – again to make new discoveries (more interesting than puppets on strings). All of these have been successful, there is no inefficiency, and you reject them because they entail humanized thought patterns which you think your God probably has but definitely hasn’t got.

DAVID: How do you know God probably has 'thought patterns and emotions like ours.'? We have no solid evidence, do we?

dhw: I don’t know. I'm quoting you. […] and you confirmed two of your earlier ideas in a December post: “That God would be interested in His creations is reasonable as are our logical thought patterns similar to God’s.” Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Pure guesswork. God tells us nothing as we analyze His works.

dhw: Correct. You made a guess (probably has thought patterns like ours), and then guessed that he couldn’t possibly have thought patterns like ours. And you kid yourself that this is how all theologians think about God.

DAVID: I am following all of every instruction I was taught. Your baseless way of thinking about God is now bolded in your statement above. You are simply listening to your own imagination, guideless in theology.

WHAT instructions? Why do you keep refusing to tell us? The bolded statement above was made by YOU! And having agreed that it is reasonable to assume that we and God have similar thought patterns, you go on to tell us “He has some sort of personality, certainly not human in any sense.” And you can’t see that you are contradicting yourself.

DAVID (on the Buddhism thread): Your human personality forces itself into all your theories about God. You must learn to separate yourself.

dhw: I quote you: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” This is a prime example of an “I” forcing itself into all its theories about God, and explains many of the contradictions that plague those theories. Of course all our arguments and beliefs stem from our “selves”, but it so happens that my “self” has no fixed beliefs and can only present alternative explanations for what I see as reality.
All dealt with above. Now please tell us the instructions that have led you into all your contradictions.